- From: Marcos Caceres <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:56:49 +1000
- To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- CC: public-appformats@w3.org
Hi Robert, You raise a really good point about the realities of retaining a text-only content model. I will note this as an issue in the next draft. I also share your concerns about "the semantic drift". I will look further to see how this is being addressed by current solutions. If you have any further suggestions, I would really like to hear them. Marcos [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WAPF-REQ/#appendix_manifest Robert Sayre wrote: > > It's not clear why you need a new XML format for config. It seems > rather optimistic to assume that a format almost identical to RSS/Atom > entries will retain a text-only content model. That is how RSS2 > started out. > > Won't be long before you see > > <description>My <b>awesome</b> new extension!</description> > > All of the widget platforms will have to ship a feed parser anyway. > Use a content model identical to an Atom Entry or RSS2 Item, so we > don't get another title/link/description format and accompanying > semantic drift. It occurs to me that a feed of widgets might be neat. >
Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 04:57:10 UTC